...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
comparing Egyptian to other Afroasiatic languages
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by rasol: [qb] But you can *use* one word to suggest or deny any relationship you want in between any langauges you choose. That's why this 'selective word comparison' method - which has such great 'intuitive' appeal to the laymen, is not scientifically valid.[/qb][/QUOTE]Which is how Clyde can create entire lists of words with similar definitions from languages in West Africa, to India, to Japan! [b]LMFO[/b] :D [QUOTE][qb]Look at a map of the logical geographic expanse of Afro-Asiatic. [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/da/Afro-Asiatic.png/300px-Afro-Asiatic.png[/IMG] Now superimpose upon upon this and imaginery map of Winters - Nigerian - Dravidian - Japanese language family.[/qb][/QUOTE]Again, I find it hilarious how Clyde can so easily dismiss more logical sounding information for more 'fantastic' notions. [QUOTE][qb]As for Obenga - he was primarily and rightly concerned with debunking the Hamito-Semito mythology which at it's height attempted to reduce mdw ntr and hence Kemet to a sub-division of of the semitic world. He wanted to show that mdw ntr was related to other African languages and *not* to semitic and berber - and therefore to the languages of non-Blacks. Given that linguists now root the cushitic division at the base of Afrisan language with the Semitic and Berber divisions being the youngest - this argument is no longer necessary and in fact it *backfires*. Here is why: The orignal intent is to show that mdw ntr is African. But this is today nearly universally acknolwedged. So by arguing that Berber and Semitic are *unrelated* to other Afrisan languages, you simply end up moving African languages including Ethio-semitic and *all* of the Berber languages out of Africa. When you do this you re-enable Eurocentric back-migration mythology all over again. It's critically important to keep up with current scholarship. [/qb][/QUOTE]I couldn't have said it better myself. The problem with some Africanists scholars like Obenga is that they still create works based solely on a knee-jerk reaction to (out-dated) Eurocentric works. In the past, Eurocentrics were correct that Egyptian was closely related to Berber and Semitic which are members of a language family. They were wrong however to say that such a family originated among "caucazoid" in Western Asia, and more accurate scholarship has shown that the phylum originated on the African continent among black Africans and that included Berber as well as Semitic. Even genetics has shown a migration of Africans into Western Asia during the Neolithic that very well could correspond to the introduction of Semitic languages to that area. Yet Clyde and his ilk desperately dismiss such evidence that helps the Africanist cause. Why?? [QUOTE]Neith-Athena asks: [qb] Then how would one explain the similarities that Dr. Winters and Obenga point out? Is it not possible to trace Afrasan to an even older African language from which it and other phyla split? Also, different contributors to the forun keep mentioning older African cultural developments that culminated in Kemet but existed long before. Can anyone say more about this? Has any research been done on it, and if so, could you point out the sources? [/qb][/QUOTE] [QUOTE]alTakruri answers: [qb] Rather than genetic families, Dalby proposes region wide affinity of speech overlaid by fragmentation of unaffiliated speakers. [CODE]0. AFRICA / AFRIQUE géosecteur 1. AFRO-ASIAN / AFRO-ASIATIQUE phylosecteur 00. MANDIC phylozone 10. TAMAZIC phylozone 01. SONGHAIC phylozone 11. EGYPTIC phylozone 02. SAHARIC phylozone 12. SEMITIC phylozone 03. SUDANIC phylozone 13. BEJIC phylozone 04. NILOTIC phylozone 14. CUSHITIC phylozone 05. EAST SAHEL géozone 15. EYASIC phylozone 06. KORDOFANIC phylozone 16. OMOTIC phylozone 07. RIFT VALLEY géozone 17. CHARIC phylozone 08. KHOISANIC phylozone 18. MANDARIC phylozone 09. KALAHARI géozone 19. BAUCHIC phylozone [/CODE][/qb][/QUOTE]^ This makes sense. Members of different language phylums who co-exist and interact tend to pick up the language affinity of the other. It is theorized that Niger-Congo speakers like Wolof could have picked up Afrasian similarities from the nearby Berber speaking groups who have been known to reside in Senegal which was named after the Berber group Zenaga, and etc. Many Nilo-Saharan speakers of the Nile like the Nubians have Afrasian charactersitics in their speech and vice versa. Some similarities could arguably be also be due to very distant common origin. Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan are twao distinct phlyums, yet great affinity between them both has led scholars to think both phyla descend from a common origin. Afrasian is thought to share distant relation with another phylum that probably became extinct etc. Ultimately *all* African languages share a common origin and to go further even all languages on the earth! But to deny the present diversity of existing languages and their phyla all for the purpose of a "Negro African language" is not only silly but downright insulting. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3